Liberty will be regulated to death

Have you heard the latest joke? You might be allowed to smoke pot but you won’t be able to get a biggie drink to go with your buzz. This of course references New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban all sugary drinks more than 16 ounces, and, ballot initiatives in several states to legalize small-quantity possession of cannabis.

Perhaps a better example of the liberal mindset could be found, but this will do fine for today. The evils of marijuana are well documented, as are the abject failures of our law enforcement efforts to curtail the stuff. It cannot be said that it’s harmless, yet on the other hand, it cannot be said that we’re winning the battle — or that we haven’t made the situation worse. What can be said is that strategists within the Democratic party are looking at the prospect of a ‘Yes We Cannabis’ campaign to bring out young voters. And since the Center for Disease Control reported that 2011 was the first year more young people smoked pot than cigarettes, why not capitalize on the trend?

There’s no question that obesity in America is epidemic. Over one-third of adults are considered obese while childhood and adolescent obesity has tripled in the last generation. There are many contributing factors, but sugary drinks are right in the mix. Since we apparently cannot refrain from indulging we must be saved from ourselves.

My inner libertarian voice screams out in blood-curdling horror. Do we protect the children by yanking fat drinks from our schools — and replacing corn syrup colas with artificial sweeteners like aspartame, acesulfame, cyclamate, saccharin, or sucralose? Or how about Neotame — engineered to be 8,000 times sweeter than sugar? Maybe some parents wouldn’t want their kids to drink this stuff either.

Do we reverse obesity trends by regulating the size of the cup? Will Southerners have to give up sweet tea? Will there be a Breathalyzer to test for a natural sugar buzz? Is one joint OK but not two? Are two OK but only if one is locked in the trunk of the car? These are the all-important questions pondered by liberals in their never-ending mission to regulate, regulate, regulate. For our own good.

In South Carolina, the building code folks are once again pushing legislation to mandate sprinkler systems in all new residential construction. It — will — save — lives. Who can be against saving lives? Which reminds me of the commercial with Jimmy Fallon asking, “Who wouldn’t want free money?” And the baby throws the cash back in his face. Likewise, there are many who wouldn’t want a sprinkler system in their house — don’t want to pay for it, don’t want to maintain it, don’t want to worry about it. And don’t want to be forced by government bureaucrats to do it over their objection. Bureaucrats completely understand this but it doesn’t matter — it’s their duty to protect foolish and stubborn homeowners from their own ignorance.

It’s not the first time this sprinkler mandate has come up, and it won’t be the last. Lobbyists will continue to pressure lawmakers year after year, working toward that one night when all are weary and the vote can squeak through. Liberals have infinite patience in their quest to save us all.